Home Is Where the Hearth Is
There's a new biography of Bill Mauldin just out that I'm looking forward to reading. Mauldin is the artist who set the bar impossibly high for social commentary as visual art, a bar that was put in place by Hogarth and Daumier. It is presumptuous and pretension of me to think of what I do as art, but Mauldin was an important artist of the 20th century along with Charles M. Schulz, who, incidentally, bestowed great praise on Mauldin when he had Snoopy proclaim of him, "he drew great mud." For my money these two geniuses will outlive all the Warhols, Rauschenburgs, Pollocks, and Picassos who worked in their period. Mauldin and Schulz were their period, central to defining and memorializing it.
posted by John M Crowther @ 6:47 AM
25 Comments:
Hey, I can see your point about those first three guys --Warhol, Rauschenburg and Pollock-- maybe, maybe time will tell that they are no geniuses, maybe. But Picasso! Give us a break. That Spaniard could paint and draw and sculpt and make pots, and when he was hot there was no one better. How about the 1915 Harlequin they have at MoMa in New York for one? I'd like to see Maudlin or any other cartoonist do something like that!!! And that's not taking anything away from Maudlin who was great.
John C., whole heartedly disagree with you. Having attempted to draw cartoons, can tell you that what you do is indeed art in a true form. It is hard work and with a few lines of drawing, you need to tell the whole story, which you do with success. That is indeed art. Went back and viewed the last Jeremy cartoon. Wonderful in every way. Rock on!
John... I wonder who it was that drew the line between fine art and illustration. Do you know? I reckon it's all art... and St. Francis of Assisi had it right when he infamously said "he who works with his hands is a labourer... he who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman... but he who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist" I believe cartoonists use more of the the latter more than anyone!
Terrific cartoons John... that just keep on getting better! :-)
oh heck... that should be
"more of the latter than anyone"
(It's been a loooong day! LOL)
My favorite 20th century artist is Al Hirschfeld. roger
Al Hirschfeld? Charles Schulz? Hey, who’s next? Walt Kelly? What’s going on here? All great cartoonists I’ll admit, folks, but when you start putting these guys up there on the same level with painters like Picasso, Braque, Cezanne, Monet, and Francis Bacon I think you’re all going overboard. It’s like comparing a hamburger to a filet mignon, a fish finger to a Maine Lobster, hand-holding to sex. Let’s give cartooning its due. We all know it’s an art, but it’s not Art. What’s a Peanuts strip compared to Guernica, for god’s sake?
Okay, anon, I'll take the bait. Just what it is that makes your gods of pigment and canvas Artists with a capital A and relegates Al Hirschfeld to 2nd class citizen status? Seriously, just what, in your opinion, makes "Harlequin" art while disqualifying Walt Kelley's work? And for that matter, what's so all-fired great about mushy filet mignon when compared to a great hamburger? I suspect you're confusing concept and execution, while buying into the hype foist on us by centuries of critics, academics, and dealers.
I hate to be contentious here and believe you me I have nothing against hamburgers --some of my best friends are burgers but in my opinion cartooning even the best of it can’t compare with the finer arts of oil painting. Now this is no put down of the cartoon greats you and others mentioned but stick a Hirschfield next to one of Picasso’s great portraits in MoMa and most of us and even the public can see the difference in quality in a New York minute. Mozart is a genius and Salieri’s okay, Bill Maudlin’s wonderful but Goya’s better, and by the way I’m not buying into any “hype foisted on us by centuries of critics” cause I can’t afford to. These days hype costs too much per pound.
Again I challenge you to tell me what is it exactly that makes Picasso a greater artist than Hirschfeld. And let's keep subjectivity out of it. One man's meat is another man's poison, be it filet or hamburger, with or without onions.
>>What’s a Peanuts strip compared to Guernica, for god’s sake?<<
Anon... that's just the point. They can't be compared. Just as filet mignon can not be compared to a hamburger... or an Aston Martin can not be compared to a hot little Mini Cooper S. It's like comparing apples and oranges... or Brad Pitt and George Clooney... both gorgeous... but at the same time VERY different! LOL
John, I love your cartoons and the reaction to the commentary. I love cartoons, caricature and silhouettes.
My pick to compete with this group would be Toulouse Lautrec. He could also do it all.
Katherine
Hey Jean forgive me, can I quote what was said “For my money these two geniuses will outlive all the Warhols, Rauschenburgs, Pollocks, and Picassos who worked in their period.” Someone, no names please, is comparing names. You say apples and oranges but how about Maudlins and Picassos? If you want me to compare a Maudlin to a Picasso, my vote is going to go to Picasso. No offense meant.
The point though, anaon, is not what you prefer, but why one is great art and the other isn't. What are the criteria aside from personal preference?
The Picassos et al are certainly fashionable, and hyped beyond belief, but they don't capture the heart and soul of the culture that produced them. Did Picasso truly tap into something deep and enduring, or are his paintings just arresting, different, and big?
Rule No. 1 in blog commentary:
"One shalt not argue with or contradict the views (and opinions) expressed by the blog owner - it's his/her blog - their space - and therefore their prerogative"
That's not to say you can't express your views and opinions... just as long as you allow for opinions that differ.
Anon>>We all know it’s an art, but it’s not Art<< Says who?
And like John... I am curious to know why... :-)
I am being cautioned by Ms. Jean here that, and I quote, "One shalt not argue with or contradict the views (and opinions) expressed by the blog owner “ Since when? We still live in a democracy, right? When push comes to shove, it all comes down to a question of taste, doesn’t it? In a democracy every man and woman has the inalienable right to have his own personal taste. I can’t explain why I think Picasso is Art and Maudlin is art. I do know what I like, and hey! until some Mullah comes along and tells me to shut up I’m going to repeat what an old Portuguese fisherman once told me --“For each mouth, a different soup.” To carry that into the meat department, “for each mouth, a different pork chop.” Please let me chew on what gives me pleasure. You’re giving me indigestion, Jean.
Hah, I got you on the ropes, anon. The best you can do is that it's just your opinion about art (which you're welcome to post here), but in keeping with the lofty intellectual atmosphere herein established you have to do better than that? What is art? What's it's function? Would you like Pogo better if it was six feet high, fifteen feet across, and in color?
>>When push comes to shove, it all comes down to a question of taste, doesn’t it? In a democracy every man and woman has the inalienable right to have his own personal taste<<
Precisely Anon. And that right should be extended to John (and anyone else who expresses a differing opinion here) But being a Ms. maybe I msssed something?! (chuckles);-)
No-one is denying you freedom of speech (least of all me - not my place - not my blog) but broad sweeping statements such as:
"I think you’re all going overboard"
"We all KNOW it’s an art, but it’s NOT Art"
deny others this same right.
Personal preference is fine... but stating it as "fact" (in my humble view) requires some sort of substantiation :-)
You say "personal preference is fine... but stating it as 'fact' (in my humble view) requires some sort of substantiation :-)” Hey Jean, where did I ever say what I feel is a fact? Since when does one have to substantiate taste? Read my lips please. It’s clearly an opinion. You want to mount a Walt Kelly or Shulz cartoon up there next to a Rembrandt and call it a masterpiece, hell, do it. Be my guest. I wonder what Rembrandt would think about that, let alone Walt Kelly or Shulz who had a more modest view of their abilities than their fans here.
Slick, anon, duck the tough questions. You must be either a politician in real life or an art historian. You don't need to defend your right to an opinion, here, but since you've brought up Rembrandt, can you tell me exactly what makes his work great, not by parroting Wikipedia, but in your own thoughts and words? Or try this on for size: one of the aspects of genuine art (or Art with a capital A) is its ablity to say one thing while meaning another. Picasso's underlying meaning was always, "I think I've hit on something that can make me very big francs."
Oh would somebody PLEASE shoot me now...LOL
(and where is that little red smiley banging his head against a brick wall when you need him?) (((LOL)))
Jeezus, we’re up to twenty plus comments so far and so far no one other than yours truly seems to think that Picasso might be in any way superior to Bill Maudlin or Al Hirschfield. OK. It’s a free country or world. You want to know what makes Rembrandt great? How about his use of light and shadow, how about his draftsmanship, how about brush technique, how about his humanism, and finally since I can’t quote Wikipedia how about quoting the old master himself who said “without atmosphere a painting is nothing,” and “the deepest and most lifelike emotion has been expressed, and that's the reason they have taken so long to execute.” Now can I please go back to my day job?
>>Jeezus, we’re up to twenty plus comments so far and so far no one other than yours truly seems to think that Picasso might be in any way superior to Bill Maudlin or Al Hirschfield<<
With respect... you're still comparing apples and oranges Anon.
Yeah? Well, hey anon, how about Mauldin's draftsmanship, brush technique, his humanism, and his ability to express the deepest and most lifelike emotion? Only it didn't take him anywhere near as long as Rembrandt, he could pull it off in minutes, without slathering dingy colors on the canvas. And by the way, misspelling Bill Mauldin's name is a cheap shot, worthy of a second-rate Catskill's stand-up comic.
23 comments! Hey, is this some sort of Guinness book record? To end it, folks, what’s wrong with comparing apples to oranges for god’s sake when I’m the poor sap (pun intended) who’s going to eat one or the other? And if I say that as much as I admire apples, I’m absolutely crazy about oranges, I am not asking you or anyone else out there to run down to the market and buy a bushel. I will go on record here as saying that in my heart of hearts oranges are far superior to apples, yes, superior in taste, in juice and superior in color. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—we can not substantiate a question of taste. Thank God that in a government of the people, by the people and for the people apples and oranges shall not perish from the earth. I rest my dingy crate. I’m out of here.
How does one compare an apple and an orange? One can't... and nor should one try. That... in my view... is where the error was made.
Post a Comment
<< Home